National Reciprocity part Deux

This is a discussion on National Reciprocity part Deux within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; lol, happens to the best of us. I'm concerned about this, but as long as the only amendment is to clean up that confusing language ...

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 76 to 85 of 85

Thread: National Reciprocity part Deux

  1. #76
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,048
    lol, happens to the best of us.

    I'm concerned about this, but as long as the only amendment is to clean up that confusing language another poster pointed out it should be fine. There is the possibility that this could be pushed somewhere bad by the gun grabbers, but if the bill is handled properly they shouldn't have the opportunity.

    I agree that there should be caution with federal laws and regulations. We have way too many contradictory, oppressive, and unconstitutional laws as it is. But if Congress passes laws helping to protect our freedom, they should be encouraged. It appears that this is one of those instances. Call your congresscritter and encourage them to pass this :)

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #77
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,527
    Quote Originally Posted by ken45 View Post
    Here is part of a commentary from the DUF digest, extracted from the NRAILA:
    see NRA-ILA :: The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill
    I do get very weary of all the folks who talk big about gun rights and then cry when some piece of legislation to expand them gets proposed. We saw the same phenomenon when everyone popped up to oppose incorporation of 2A.

    The bill given by the OP in post 1 makes sense even if the awkward language isn't cleaned up. I just hope it goes somewhere.

    We need a bill like that one and I'm not going to get worked up over "what ifs" that might come up in the future. We have enough present day obstacles and impediments to traveling with a CHL that need to be fixed, yesterday.

  4. #78
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I do get very weary of all the folks who talk big about gun rights and then cry when some piece of legislation to expand them gets proposed. We saw the same phenomenon when everyone popped up to oppose incorporation of 2A.

    The bill given by the OP in post 1 makes sense even if the awkward language isn't cleaned up. I just hope it goes somewhere.

    We need a bill like that one and I'm not going to get worked up over "what ifs" that might come up in the future. We have enough present day obstacles and impediments to traveling with a CHL that need to be fixed, yesterday.
    Write down the date and time. . . I actually agree 100% with this statement from Hopyard. This is one of the few cases where the Federal Government is trying to do it's constitutional mandate of protecting the rights and freedoms of the people.

  5. #79
    Member Array Varmiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Full Time Rv'er
    Posts
    153
    First of all, lets refer back to my original comment in post # 68 and then hopyard’s response in post # 69.

    No sir. I am not a mind reader. All one needs to do is look at the makeup of the House, then the Senate, and of course the White House but more importantly, HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS.

    Seems simple.

    Chris

  6. #80
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,527
    Quote Originally Posted by Varmiter View Post
    First of all, lets refer back to my original comment in post # 68 and then hopyard’s response in post # 69.

    No sir. I am not a mind reader. All one needs to do is look at the makeup of the House, then the Senate, and of course the White House but more importantly, HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS.

    Seems simple.

    Chris
    No. Not simple. The ball is in the court of The House. My personal thought is that though The House is seemingly full of members who proclaim themselves "gun rights supporters" at election time, this bill will go nowhere. The reason, legislative hypocrisy. If that's what you mean by "how the system works" we have a point of agreement.

    But, if it does get out of The House as a clean bill, I do not think it is doomed in The Senate. And I don't think it is a foregone conclusion that it will get vetoed. Let's see the first step from those who have it in their court.

    I do think it won't get the time of day in The House as some of the loudest mouths for gun owner rights have either done nothing or done things to harm. As you pointed out in post 68 for example, "This was posted up on Constitution Watch on Feb 20. HR 822 was immediately passed to committee where the vast majority of bills die," and post 73, and my earlier exchange with K (not to pick on him though) -- who objects to LEOSA and to this proposal.

    If The House leadership meant what they campaign on, this bill would have gone to a different committee and it would be a shoe in. So when nothing happens, you all should remember "who didn't do nothin."

  7. #81
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,048
    You might be right Hop, but I still think the weakest link is the Executive signature. Remember, the first national reciprocity bill was only two votes short of a supermajority in the Senate.

  8. #82
    Member Array Varmiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Full Time Rv'er
    Posts
    153
    Hopyard,

    Well, it IS simple.

    I agree with you apart from your last paragraph.

    First of all, this item couldnít go to any other committee.

    It is not on the committeeís calendar as yet. So far, gathering dust.

    The House, as well as the Senate is up to their backside at the moment to forestall a government shutdown on Mar 4 based on funding issues.

    Donít look for any gun related issues coming OUT of either chamber until the financial/funding/de-funding issues are close to being settled. This will continue thru next year.

    Oh....and donít forget, with the 111th Congress, there was not one (1) gun related issue that cleared either chamber even when in the 111th Congress, the Demís held the majority.

    Basically, one needs to not only understand how the system works, but also the makeup of either or both chambers of Congress.

    I think we are both on the same page. We just view it from different perspectives.

    Chris

  9. #83
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,884
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    my earlier exchange with K (not to pick on him though) -- who objects to LEOSA and to this proposal.
    Hop - please show me where I state that I am against LEOSA and this proposal. In Post 19 I show arguments for being either for or against this proposal. In fact, there I state I am for it on Constitutional grounds but I have issues with creating a federal law, which can be rewritten by the next Pelosi, to interpret what is already plainly written in the Constitution - "shall not be infringed." This is kind of a backward way of amending the Constitution at least until the courts rule that it is unconstitutional - if they do.

    Further in post 19, I state that the effort is only a partial attempt by the Feds to get the states to live up to their Constitutional duties. If the states were to perform as the Constitution dictates it would obviate the need for LEOSA or this bill.

    You brought LEOSA into the argument as a strawman to support your desire to buy a shotty in CT which, for whatever reason TX will not allow. You further argue, essentially, that the Feds should make all gun laws so they are consistent throughout the country and that this is the only way the rule of law can prevail. The Constitution does not give the feds this power, it is reserved to the people or the states.

    So, in a nutshell, I have not stated a position on this bill - because I am still struggling with it. On the one hand, it sure would be nice to be able to carry in 48 states and buying extra permits is an expensive hassle. On the other hand, reducing a right guaranteed under the Constitution to a law, and probably a set of laws over time, is fraught with peril. While changing the Constitution is a daunting task, changing a law is not. If this bill becomes law, while we may like it for a time, at some time it may, and probably will, come back to bite us.

    The real solution is to get the states to abide by the Constitution, which would allow us to carry anywhere within the USA without having to pay the state to exercise that right. That would eliminate the need for this bill - about which my position is still undecided.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  10. #84
    Senior Member Array swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    931
    If the bill is attached to legislation Obama wants more, he might sign it. This is how the NPS carry law was passed. It was attached to the 2009 Credit Card Reform Act. So it's not a foregone conclusion he will veto it IMO

    The bill only failed last time by 2 votes in the Senate. Blue dog Democrats are keenly aware their votes are being scrutinized. They followed Nancy Pelosi right off a cliff with Obamacare. They aren't likely to jeopardize their 2012 election chances by voting against a popular bill that they can realistically defend IMO.

    The House may pass this as well with a large Republican majority

    I don't think it's a foregone conclusion this will fail (in my mind anyway.)

    Congress has used the Commerce Clause before to justify their interference in gun law. Look at the GFSZA. This new version from 1994 may be unconstitutional but has had no challenges yet.

    Speaker Boehner requires all bills to have Constitutional justification. These are published each day in the Congressional Record. Attached is a screen shot of the justifications from various members. They overwhelmingly uses various clauses from Article I Section 8.

    The P & I or "Full faith and credit" clauses aren't used. Strange

    I ain't throw'in in the towel just yet.
    Attached Images

  11. #85
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,527
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    So, in a nutshell, I have not stated a position on this bill - because I am still struggling with it. On the one hand, it sure would be nice to be able to carry in 48 states and buying extra permits is an expensive hassle. On the other hand, reducing a right guaranteed under the Constitution to a law, and probably a set of laws over time, is fraught with peril. While changing the Constitution is a daunting task, changing a law is not. If this bill becomes law, while we may like it for a time, at some time it may, and probably will, come back to bite us.
    .
    Precisely why I said I grow weary of those who talk about gun rights but oppose efforts to expand them. I'm not interested in the what ifs of the future. This bill as shown here is a clean bill which would help us all. It needs to be voted on by The House, and there are enough committees and folks in that body that the excuse that they have other stuff to deal with just
    underlines the hypocrisy.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Craigslist Dangers - Part Deux
    By Tally XD in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: May 6th, 2010, 10:54 AM
  2. Glockaide Part Deux
    By Danimal in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: March 8th, 2009, 07:31 PM
  3. Wish me luck (part deux)
    By Concealed_23 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: March 17th, 2006, 11:25 PM
  4. Warning Part Deux
    By WorldPax in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: January 12th, 2006, 11:21 AM
  5. Tell...Don't Tell, Part Deux
    By Tom357 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: May 1st, 2005, 08:51 PM

Search tags for this page

h.r. 822 national reciprocity fed control

,

how is hr822 doing in washington dc

,

how would national reciprocity law work in california

,

hr 822 concealed carry reciprocity bill introduced co sponsor

,

if national reciprocity bill passes will states remove their concealed carry permits

,

last state to honor driver license reciprosity?

,

leosa is closest thing to national gun permit

,

national reciprocity duty to inform

,

national reciprocity is a state or constitutional issue?

,

national reciprocity law introduced into the house

,

national right to carry reciprocity 822 problem

,

s&w .40 120004

,

what happened to hr822 in committee

,

what happened with hr 822

Click on a term to search for related topics.